Sotomayor's Confirmation: Republicans v. Hispanic Body Politic

This is a general thread asking you to assert opinions regarding Judge Sotomayor’s upcoming confirmation—or if you prefer, her responses during recent hearings.

However, to narrow the focus of conversation, I’m curious as-to how people feel about the [redundant] questions which focus on her “wise Latina” remark. Why is it that the [allegedly] educated members of the Senate Judiciary Committee hover around 15 seconds of a speech she gave years back?

Listening to her speech as a whole, one would not draw the inane conclusions asserted by the GOP Senators throughout her hearing. Senator Sessions—a man not particularly known for racial sensitivity—has become the go-to quiz master, narrowly centered ON THIS issue. How many times must she repeat herself before the GOP will concede to a lack of evidence hinting towards racial bias?!?!

She is a well educated, strongly qualified LATINA WOMAN who is being berated for things she’s said, TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT (new in the world of politics?)!

I feel as if we’re wasting (1) time, (2) money, and (3) energy listening to questions which don’t seem to cover any ground.

For RJ Republicans, can you clarify this strategy (if any)? It looks as though Republicans are SEEKING a means of PUSHING Hispanic voters further from their party; sensible?

She is MORE than highly qualified and they know itso they have to fall on the only thing they can trump up

I loved yesterday when Sessions that Idiotwho couldn't get himself confirmed for the circuit court back when tries to say that Sotomayor should be more like her fellow Circuit Court judge who he felt was more conservative

Sonja Sotomajor just smiled because Judge Cedarbaum was one of the Judges seated behind her and she just said “My friend Judge Cedarbaum is here,” Sotomayor riposted, to Sessions’ apparent surprise. “We are good friends, and I believe that we both approach judging in the same way, which is looking at the facts of each individual case and applying the law to those facts.”

But try to find this exchange on any of the network news services [url]http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/07/14/sotomayor-surprises-sessions/[/url]

ucla_matta saidHow many times must she repeat herself before the GOP will concede to a lack of evidence hinting towards racial bias?!?!

Actually, the only evidence of racial bias the GOP is revealing is their own. And their dogged determination to undermine a qualified nominee for the US Supreme Court simply because she is not a fanatical, white right-wing Republican.

I hope the GOP pays the price at the polls with Hispanic voters at the next election. Their racial prejudice could not be more blatant.

ucla_matta saidHow many times must she repeat herself before the GOP will concede to a lack of evidence hinting towards racial bias?!?!

Actually, the only evidence of racial bias the GOP is revealing is their own. And their dogged determination to undermine a qualified nominee for the US Supreme Court simply because she is not a fanatical, white right-wing Republican.

I hope the GOP pays the price at the polls with Hispanic voters at the next election. Their racial prejudice could not be more blatant.

But they are playing to the white disenfranchized white maleI could not believe that they marched those white guys from Conn up there

They even had them wearing their firefighter uniforms ..... What is really sad is that the mainstream media plays along with itInstead of calling a kettle black they replay these republican's statements as if they have merit and are not just bloviating lies and half-truths

Hm, I think she will get confirmed and be the first Hispanic supreme court judge in US history. On the "Wise Latina" comment, well she may be right about that but they took it out of context to make her look "evil" or "racist" or whatever. She's a democrat, her party will back her up. I am kind of glad to see a color woman supreme court judge for a change. Have anyone see the TV show "Judge Marilyn Milian"- now that's a hot Latina NYC judge who has brains, looks, Intelligence and she's pretty sassy too.

The more the Republicans play to their racist base, the more they alienate all others. I think they just fell on the Hispanic-Latino sword with this one. It'll get those Republican Senators reelected in their own bigoted states, but they're killing Republicans elsewhere. Good.

And that lily-white peanut gallery of firefighters the Republicans assembled to sit behind Judge Sotomayor was a total disgrace. I was wondering where the white hoods were.

The fact that Pat Buchanan is maintained by a GUARANTEED soapbox (a la MSNBC) makes me uneasy. He is clearly in consensus with a large population in this country, signs of a 1950's uprising? Progress be damned, America is anchored in failure by a stubborn majority--we're doomed! :-) TGIF

the repubs had to show they weren't going to roll over and rubber stamp the nomination, but with nothing substantive to criticise her for, they harped on the one compromising item on her record. overall, it was painless for her, the republicans weren't especailly mean and i think it was a draw.

furthermore the last thing a wise person does is talk about how wise they are -- it was stupid thing to say and she should have fully, clearly and unoquivically backed off the remark. if she said, "look guys i said something stupid, i don't really think that way, sorry" then the rebulicans would have NOTHING to say about her. instead she sort of tepidly backed away from the statement and left the door open to 3 days of republican criticism.

having said that, i think she'll be good judge, but a wise one? not so much.

I think the Republicans were respectful and their questioning was appropriate considering many concerns about Sotomayor. She was fairly vetted, as she should have been, by all members of the panel -- that IS their job. No one was disrespectful or out of line in their questioning, and in the end I think Sotomayor handled herself beautifully and won over most if not everybody. I suspect she will be approved overwhelmingly by Democrats as well as Republicans.

evilgemini saidthe repubs had to show they weren't going to roll over and rubber stamp the nomination, but with nothing substantive to criticise her for, they harped on the one compromising item on her record. overall, it was painless for her, the republicans weren't especailly mean and i think it was a draw.

furthermore the last thing a wise person does is talk about how wise they are -- it was stupid thing to say and she should have fully, clearly and unoquivically backed off the remark. if she said, "look guys i said something stupid, i don't really think that way, sorry" then the rebulicans would have NOTHING to say about her. instead she sort of tepidly backed away from the statement and left the door open to 3 days of republican criticism.

having said that, i think she'll be good judge, but a wise one? not so much.

Why would she back away from a statement (citing her speech in Berkeley, "...wise Latina...") she made which was [clearly] taken out of context?

She is by no-means obligated to distance herself from that remark--which would most assuredly demonstrate cowardice.

She maintained herself as a strong willed decision maker, refusing to allow the narrow focus of her Republican colleagues to hinder her views. This is a CLEAR sign of a judge who isn’t affected by the “shoulds/should-nots” of an ignorant few.

jprichva saidWhat the Republicans are doing is attempting to limit the range of "acceptable" choices for Supreme Court Justice for any future nominations that Obama may get a chance to make.

Yes, this is the tactic that many political commentators have noted about the Republican approach to the hearings. They can't stop her, but they'll make reelection points with their own racist base, and influence & intimidate any future Supreme Court nominee Obama may get to make.

CuriousJockAZ saidA party trying to limit the range of "acceptable" choices for Supreme Court Justice??? Wow! That's a new concept. We sure never saw that tactic used in the past 8 years

Really? And what did we wind up with?Two of the most extreme radical right-wingers that have ever sat on the Court. Two activist judges, wasting no time in legislating from the bench.I thought you people didn't like that.Oh, right, of course---you only don't like it when a liberal does it.

ucla_matta saidCan I ask why the word "activist" is used when an appointed judge makes decisions which aren't in-line with Conservative standards?

That hypocrisy has been noted by many. When Conservative judges make case law that pleases Conservatives, all is well. When case law is made that does not please Conservatives, then the judges are wicked "judicial activists." It all depends upon whose ox is being gored.

ucla_matta saidCan I ask why the word "activist" is used when an appointed judge makes decisions which aren't in-line with Conservative standards?

Activist is just a word to label a judge you don't like. At this point, the "activists" are the conservative justices, overturning Congress when they like, inventing ways to prevent citizens from enforcing rights against the government, reinterpreting the law of equality, disregarding precedent . . . . That's activism. The left hopes for another "activist" liberal, but it's not going to happen. We will get liberal justices like Sotomayor, who follow the law and don't use the Supreme Court to do anything other than decide cases.

The word was thrown around so often that I wonder if it lost meaning altogether, thanks for clearing it up.

Is it really a surprise to anyone that our elected officials would use Supreme Court positions to support/stress an "agenda"--or better said, an overall "leaning"?

Conservatives have thrown their hands in the air and begun to spew inane garbage regarding Sonia's racial reference, completely disregarding her history/judgments.

At what point in her career can she be considered an "activist"? She hasn't MADE policy, she's followed/ruled by it.